If saying "it wasn't really a choice because I could never choose that" worked, there would be all manner of criminals who would be set free on the defense they "didn't have a choice because they felt compelled" to do whatever it was. The real zinger there is many of them would be telling the truth - they really couldn't help themselves. Nevertheless, what they did was a crime, and they don't get a free pass because "it wasn't a choice".

Any other choice works the same way. You don't get to claim it's "not a choice" because you feel a compelling urge to choose any particular option. In fact, you'd have to create a convoluted circumstance in order to find a place where you literally can't choose, and those are few and far between and not relevant to our discussion, such as someone forcing you with threat of violence and the like.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

No precedent for that.

No, the definition has always been two adults. Throughout US history there have been different restrictions on marriage (race and gender for example) but the definition has remained the same.

The traditional and universally common accepted definition has always been one man, one woman. All throughout the history of human culture and civilization, that is what it has been. It has never been just any two adults.

Posted by MikeT23 on 6/14/2013 4:06:00 PM (view original):That would be changing the accepted definition of marriage.

No precedent for that.

No, the definition has always been two adults. Throughout US history there have been different restrictions on marriage (race and gender for example) but the definition has remained the same.

The traditional and universally common accepted definition has always been one man, one woman. All throughout the history of human culture and civilization, that is what it has been. It has never been just any two adults.

Stop making **** up to fit your failed argument.

It is now. I think it's eleven states that allow gay marriage. The world hasn't ended.

How is the argument that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman remotely relevant? It's popular. I get that. But why does that matter at all? Sexuality has always been defined by who one wants to sleep with, but bistiza thinks we should change that definition. Why shouldn't we simultaneously change our definition of marriage?

Posted by dahsdebater on 6/15/2013 12:26:00 AM (view original):How is the argument that marriage has always been defined as one man and one woman remotely relevant? It's popular. I get that. But why does that matter at all? Sexuality has always been defined by who one wants to sleep with, but bistiza thinks we should change that definition. Why shouldn't we simultaneously change our definition of marriage?

It's relevant because it has been the most fundamental aspect of marriage since the beginning of human culture and civilization.

So what? Lots of the freedoms and choices we now take for granted as Americans would have seemed ridiculous to the vast majority of people a few hundred years ago. Seems stupid to halt the expansion of freedoms now just because we're tired of altering tradition.